Fossetts Farm

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Sep. 21 2004,14:27)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Sep. 21 2004,14:38)]If there was a hypothetical company, which hypothetically was operating at a loss and had large hypothetical debts, would that hypothetical company's auditors sign off on its accounts?

When I trained I was sent a few times to "do" the company books of a client which did not hypothetically have losses & debts, as it had no income!!  And never had as far as the eye could see.

Turned out the "director" was the ex president of the Nigerian senate who was "somewhere" in the UK, as recently his best mate had been discovered in a crate at Stansted being "taken" back to Nigeria.

Somewhere this "company" had some undisclosed income of some kind but the Companies House, Inland Revenue et al accepted the accounts as they were!!  Wonder why?  

Trying to make accountancy sound exciting Hooly?

You're not fooling anyone mate

 

[Hooly]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Sep. 21 2004,16:13)]Trying to make accountancy sound exciting Hooly?

Trust me I'm an accountant!  

Bit rich from a bloke who used to get his excitement filleting fish!!  Oh, but I remember now, that was in your dark distant gay days that you don't like to talk about.  

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Sep. 21 2004,15:24)]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Sep. 21 2004,16:13)]Trying to make accountancy sound exciting Hooly?

Trust me I'm an accountant!  

Bit rich from a bloke who used to get his excitement filleting fish!!  Oh, but I remember now, that was in your dark distant gay days that you don't like to talk about.  

I got no excitement filleting fish, it was just a job!

Shelling prawns, now that was another matter - phwwoooaaarrrr!

As for my gay past, well it could be worse I could have married a colonial.........DOH!

How can we take this thread anymore off-topic? I know how - is Homer back in residence in the South Upper this Saturday?

 

[rabbloke]

Surely two points are important. The 'on' paper rent debt to SEL and the fact that we are now turning a profit. Unless I am wrong and the accountants will correct me, the loss would have been claimed against tax for the following three financial years. Good move to get tax assistance on a paper debt that would never be in hard cash. It would mean SEL never let us off anything. Also, if the club is now turning a profit, why cant it go on turning a profit. At Roots Hall?. We are sold the moving story as our only hope of survival. Bit odd that. With a bit of on field success the profits could well increase. Add the monies to FA grants et al and we can move forward and improve the stadium. Martin Dawn the Messiah?. More likely the Masseur. Massagaing figures to suit.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (rabbloke @ Sep. 21 2004,16:38)]Also, if the club is now turning a profit, why cant it go on turning a profit. At Roots Hall?.

Because we're not going to make it to the cup final every year.

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Sep. 21 2004,17:43)]

Quote[/b] (rabbloke @ Sep. 21 2004,16:38)]Also, if the club is now turning a profit, why cant it go on turning a profit. At Roots Hall?.

Because we're not going to make it to the cup final every year.

Not with that attitude we won't.

 

[Hooly]

Quote[/b] (rabbloke @ Sep. 21 2004,17:38)]Massaging figures to suit.

We prefer to think of it as Creative Accounting!  

There are I'm sure innumerable tax avoidance scheme in the world of property development of which Delancey/SEL/MD etc will no doubt take full advantage.

One thing to bear in mind is that make a nice rental provision over several years may create a tax loss over several years, write it back in one hit & the revenue will want it & sooner rather than later!!  Fortunately the clubs cumulative tax losses will probably eat the rent write back up.  Obviously within the Delancey/SEL/MD world it's all swings & roundabouts & then becomes more a matter of timing to roll one relief against a profit, capital item or investment elsewehere in the circle.

 

[footymad13]

Mike,

"We're not philanthropists ,and have no intention of being involved long-term in football"

Colin Wagman

 

[fbm]

Important point to remember;

For us to develop RH, we have to own it.

Even if we managed that, the redevelopment would cost the club a fortune.

With a new ground, there are grants available and plenty of money from other public sources who would have an interest in the new stadium.

So it's actually cheaper to move.

 

[TrueBlue]

Quote[/b] ]Because we're not going to make it to the cup final every year

.. but Arsenal do

 

[tommytwoholes]

Just want a new ground and some reassurance/news from the club that all is on track!!!

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,00:15)]Mike,

"We're not philanthropists ,and have no intention of being involved long-term in football"

Colin Wagman

Luke.

And? Wagman is Delancey.

WS

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 24 2004,16:25)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,00:15)]Mike,

"We're not philanthropists ,and have no intention of being involved long-term in football"

Colin Wagman

Luke.

And? Wagman is Delancey.

WS

Exactly, and they are the ones backing us right.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,17:44)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Sep. 24 2004,16:25)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,00:15)]Mike,

"We're not philanthropists ,and have no intention of being involved long-term in football"

Colin Wagman

Luke.

And? Wagman is Delancey.

WS

Exactly, and they are the ones backing us right.

Only to a point, Luke. By writing off the rent debt, Delancey are only "underwriting" us to the extent that they (or more accurately, Roots Hall Limited, which is 75% owned by SEL which, in turn, is 75% owned by Delancey) are allowing us to play at Roots Hall and B&L rent free, for now.

However, last season the club effectively turned an operating profit - which is perhaps the best news this club has had in a decade. It shows that, if properly run - and that's something that RM is achieveing - this club is a viable business.

So, to answer the question - no, Delancey aren't underwriting us that much; they're only underwriting us to the extent that they aren't seeking rent off us; and they haven't, as yet, sought to recoup their initial investment from us.

That's not to belittle the extent to which we are still in Delancey's debt; but equally, we shouldn't feel as if we're in their thrall. In our own stadium, we can survive without them. We just need to get our own stadium, now...

Matt

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,17:44)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Sep. 24 2004,16:25)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,00:15)]Mike,

"We're not philanthropists ,and have no intention of being involved long-term in football"

Colin Wagman

Luke.

And? Wagman is Delancey.

WS

Exactly, and they are the ones backing us right.

Nope ...

WS

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Sep. 24 2004,18:32)]Only to a point, Luke.  By writing off the rent debt, Delancey are only "underwriting" us to the extent that they (or more accurately, Roots Hall Limited, which is 75% owned by SEL which, in turn, is 75% owned by Delancey) are allowing us to play at Roots Hall and B&L rent free, for now.

Is that right, Matt?

I was under the impression that RHL was 50%-owned by Martin Dawn and 50%-owned by Delancey (or it certainly was after the joint venture transaction back in March 1999) ...

WS

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 24 2004,19:02)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Sep. 24 2004,17:44)]Exactly, and they are the ones backing us right.

Nope ...

WS

That's not strictly true either, Michael. Like it or not, they still own the ground, the stadium, and certain book debts (through their 75% stake in SEL / Roots Hall Ltd). So, to a certain extent, they are backing us...

Matt

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Sep. 24 2004,19:07)]I was under the impression that RHL was 50%-owned by Martin Dawn and 50%-owned by Delancey (or it certainly was after the joint venture transaction back in March 1999) ...

WS

Hmm. Dunno. I thought that RHL (like SUFCL) was 75% owned by SEL - and that SEL was a 75/25 split between Delancey and MD.

However, I may well be wrong about that...

Matt

 

[Javea Shrimper]

In the shareholder's letter of March 1999, we have the following :

On 30 April 1998 Mr V T Jobson, the then Chairman of the Club sold his 55% shareholding in the Club to South Eastern Leisure plc (SEL) (a company previously wholly owned by him and his associates) and simultaneously Martin Dawn acquired a 50% shareholding in SEL.

It soon became clear that the Club's cash flow projections were proving far too optimistic and an urgent injection of extra Finance was needed. Following discussions between Martin Dawn and Mr Jobson, Mr Jobson confirmed he was not prepared to inject any more money into the Club and discussions commenced between both parties for Martin Dawn to buy from Mr Jobson his 50% interest in SEL. The sale of the SEL shares, was concluded in November 1998. As majority shareholder Martin Dawn was then in a position to arrange additional funding for the Club.

Referring the sale and leaseback of Roots Hall and the training ground and Delancey's contribution back in 1999 :

The Transaction will involve a joint venture compromising a new company, Mailtrace Limited (Mailtrace), and its new wholly-owned subsidiary, Roots Hall Limited (RHL). Mailtrace is currently 100% owned by Martin Dawn but will, immediately following completion of the Transaction, be 50% owned by Martin Dawn and 50% owned by Delancey Southend Limited (formerly Blunglen Limited) (Delancey).

In November 1998 Delancey, having already advanced substantial funds to the Club (through either Martin Dawn or SEL), replaced virtually all of the Club's commercial borrowings and effectively became the Club's banker. As security for these borrowings, Delancey has a charge over the assets of the Club (including Roots Hall and the Training Ground lease). The Club is currently in default in respect of payments of capital and interest to Delancey and in respect of lease payments to Martin Dawn in respect of the Training Ground.

To be honest I'm not clear what the situation is right this minute but the above hopefully gives some insight into what was a dodgy time for the club ...

WS

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Hmm... thought SEL then acquired more shares and then sold some of the interest in SEL to Delancey... but you're right, it's as clear as a prehistoric swamp, Mike... All I can tell you is that by mid-2000 (or was it 2001? I genuinely can't remember), and the time that Main was ousted, Delancey were definitely controlling the shares and calling the shots - it was they who, on the advice of a couple of people in particular, called the EGM and ousted Main.

Gotta go - but I'm sure this one will rumble on!

Matt